About your Search

20121205
20121205
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
, with russia and china, containment when it came to russia was countering their expansive capabilities. >> rose: right. >> our own -- when it came to their nuclear capability we were talking about deterrence. >> rose: right. >> and so i think first we want to contain iranian influence in the region, but i think the question that people are -- that what the president is really addressing is, or would we be content with deterrence? >> right. >> and there i think the difference in the ayatollahs and their religious, their they cratic approach to the world, their threats to destroy israel make them a more worrisome, significantly more worrisome possess sorry of nuclear weapons than other nuclear states. >> rose: because they have a different decision al type structure. >> yes. >> rose: from russia, and the soviet union from going into europe once again, deterrence is mutually assured destruction. and so then, does the question of value and life, different because of a culture that can produce suicide bombers mean that there -- means that will not work in the end or do you say no nationable and the
in medical equipment to russia in 2011, but we face strong competition from china, which increased its share of the russian market in each of the last ten years. mr. president, we don't shy away from strong competition, but we want that competition to be able to be played out on an even playing field. and as long as we don't have normal permanent trade relations with russia, we're disadvantaging ourselves. it simply doesn't make sense. russia has agreed he, since joining the w.t.o., russia agreed to reduce average tariffs on medical equipment to 4.3% and to cut its top tariffs from 15% down to 7%. as it stands now, that is a benefit that china will get, and we will not. it simply doesn't make sense to anybody. to grant russia pntr status requires us to repeal the 1974 jackson-vanik amendment. a lot of our staff members, i hasten to say, were not even born back when jackson-vanik was put in place. and many of our colleagues and a lot of our staff have studied the soviet union but have never really experienced that period of time, and what we're living with is a complete and total relic of a b
rights violators wherever they might be, whether in russia or syria or sudan or north korea or china or any other country. in other words, the senate committee-approved bill wisely adopted a global magnitsky standard. the reasoning for this is sound. because while the mechanism of u.s. visa denial for human rights violators was inspired by a single case in a single nation, the principles that it seeks to advance are universal. this bipartisan committee bill, unlike the house-passed version of the magnitsky act that we will soon vote on, does not single out russian human rights violators for visa denial but would apply the visa denial mechanism to people from any country who violate important human rights standards. the united states should be clear and firm in its commitment to protecting human rights. wherever the violation occur. and to holding those who violate those rights accountable to the best of our ability. including denying them visas to come to our country. human rights do not end at the borders of russia and anyone who violates those standards as so many did so blatantly
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)